tkihshbt wrote:

Yeah, the Cardinals are not going to turn money earmarked for Pujols into 10 wins.

Bernie raised some excellent points about TLR and the union bashing: 1) that it takes the distraction away from the players and puts it on him and 2) that he's trying to help Pujols take any damage from a PR hit. There are many issues I have with La Russa, but throwing himself under the bus here is admirable, if that's indeed what he's doing.

Only partly, TK, because he is also deflecting blame (notice he is not blaming himself, whoch would truly be throwing himself under a bus, or leaping on a hand grenade) from either Pujols or his bosses, to the union.  In the current political climate, the union is far too easy a target.  Perhaps the union officials can be painted as closet Muslims with questionable birth certificates, too.

forsberg_us wrote:

Actually O'Neill's position is so factually flawed that I hope no one would compare it to that of a lawyer (or at least a credible lawyer).   O'Neill's position is that you can find 3 players for $10M who will ultimately provide more production.  The examples he cites are, with the exception of Rolen, all players who signed their deals with their original teams prior to free agency.  Those contracts are significantly below market value, just as Pujols' previous deal ended up being below market value, having been signed at a similar stage of his career.

The argument that O'Neill is trying to make would be like arguing that the Cardinals shouldn't pay Wainwright more than $2M on his next contract because for $2M you could have had Jamie Garcia, Mat Latos, Carlos Gonzalez, Jason Heyward and Buster Posey (based on their 2010 salaries).  The logic is beyond flawed.

I think those guys are called defense attorneys.

don.rob11 wrote:

Pujols declines deal believed to be more than 200 mil .


http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_bc64f076-39ed-11e0-80df-00127992bc8b.html

Even then if it was a contract worth 23mill (AAV) then it is still to low.  He is worth at least the 25mill Howard got.

APRTW wrote:

don.rob11 wrote:

Pujols declines deal believed to be more than 200 mil .


http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_bc64f076-39ed-11e0-80df-00127992bc8b.html

Even then if it was a contract worth 23mill (AAV) then it is still to low.  He is worth at least the 25mill Howard got.

My point at the time that Howard got signed was that it opened the door for a shorter contract, and the Cards should have leapt, offering him whatever he wanted, but for only five years (with a few option years, of course).  The Holliday, Werth, and Crawford deals put 7 years into vogue, and now the Cards are screwed.  On top of that, they should have locked him up 1-2 years ago, as a sign of respect and to keep the peace, as WJ did for Votto.  You don't play hard-nosed business with an employee who is doing everything you could ask for on and off the field.  DeWitt looks more and more like a clueless ass who probably never bought a pack of baseball cards in his life.

Last edited by Max (2/17/2011 1:23 am)

Pujols issues statement (and gets Cardinal Nation correct).

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/article_243f8f26-3a48-11e0-a62f-00127992bc8b.html

On top of that, they should have locked him up 1-2 years ago, as a sign of respect and to keep the peace, as WJ did for Votto.

Yes, they probably should have, but the situation with Votto is not comparable.

Burwell nails it, and a new legion of Cardinal Nation has a leader with a voice!

He basically got DeWitt to say "I don't know squat about baseball, but i know how to make money" in so many words:

"When I asked DeWitt how he thinks he will be judged if they end up losing the best player in baseball, the franchise's new perfect knight, without any compensation to New York or Los Angeles, or heaven forbid, Chicago:

'I think we'll be judged on how our organization performs without Albert if he goes to another club," DeWitt said. "We're committed to winning and we're committed to spending resources to win. That's what the Cardinals are all about. We'd like Albert to continue (with them) and we will make every effort to have him to continue. He is an iconic player who helps us win and has helped us win. But it is a process we have no control over. If he chooses to go elsewhere, he chooses to go elsewhere. That's the business we're in, and players are mobile in this generation. In the end if he doesn't stay a Cardinal — which we will make every effort to make sure he does — we will be out there trying to win divisions and championships just like we've done for the last 15 years.'"

Max wrote:

Burwell nails it, and a new legion of Cardinal Nation has a leader with a voice!

He basically got DeWitt to say "I don't know squat about baseball, but i know how to make money" in so many words:

"When I asked DeWitt how he thinks he will be judged if they end up losing the best player in baseball, the franchise's new perfect knight, without any compensation to New York or Los Angeles, or heaven forbid, Chicago:

'I think we'll be judged on how our organization performs without Albert if he goes to another club," DeWitt said. "We're committed to winning and we're committed to spending resources to win. That's what the Cardinals are all about. We'd like Albert to continue (with them) and we will make every effort to have him to continue. He is an iconic player who helps us win and has helped us win. But it is a process we have no control over. If he chooses to go elsewhere, he chooses to go elsewhere. That's the business we're in, and players are mobile in this generation. In the end if he doesn't stay a Cardinal — which we will make every effort to make sure he does — we will be out there trying to win divisions and championships just like we've done for the last 15 years.'"

Funny, that's not how I read it.  What I read is "we hope that Albert Pujols remains a Cardinal and plan to make further efforts to ensure that happens.  But, if it doesn't, the team will continue and we will do what we believe is necessary to win without him."

Sounds to me like he knows baseball pretty darn well.  Albert Pujols is a great player, arguably the best of this generation.  But Albert Pujols is not bigger than baseball, nor is he bigger than the Cardinals.  Some Cardinal fans will be very unhappy if Pujols walks, but DeWitt will continue to put 3+ million people in the seats assuming the team is winning.

The Burwell article invoked a lengthy discussion on Sports talk radio this morning with the broadcasters taking exception to a lot of what he said.  I'll post the link below.  It's Segment 4, and the Burwell discussion starts at about the 6:30 mark

http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/RadioShows/ITDMorningAfter/tabid/88/articleType/ArticleView/articleId/6175/Thursdays-Show-Audio.aspx

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

tkihshbt wrote:

Yes, they probably should have, but the situation with Votto is not comparable.

As with anything, some parts are comparable and others are not.  The part I was drawing attention to is that WJ signed Votto to a deal that brought the Reds nothing except contractual peace with their young star during his the period of his career when the Reds control him.

Likewise, two years ago, the Cards still had Pujols under their control for 3 years, working at below market wages.  They could have resigned him then, paid more money for the years 09-11, but have secured contractual peace with their star AND gotten their extension locked up.  They could have even done a 10 year deal back then, Pujols asked for it.  It would have cost the Cards the extra $8-10 million or so for 09-11, but in hindsight that would be a bargain.

Hindsight is 20-20.  I seem to remember that most of us on this message board scoffed at the Rockies for adding years onto Troy Tulowitzki's contract when he had several years left on his existing deal.  Pujols had elbow surgery after the 2008 and 2009 season, and most people, including Pujols himself, were anticipating that he would need TJ surgery in the near future. 

In hindsight, the elbow wasn't a major issue last season.  But it isn't like the decision to invest 10 guaranteed years in a player with fairly significant injury concerns constitutes gross malfeasance.  IMO, I take more exception with the fact that the team repeatedly suggested that it was their intent to do the deal.  I could totally understand why, under the circumstances, they would be reluctant to do an extension, but if the team was truly reluctant, then stop telling the fans that the #1 priority is to agree to an extension.

That's another reason they should have done it then.

People are judged with 20/20 hindsight, that's the whole point of the St. Peter's gate myth.  You take exception with my version of it: I defend Moz for the Lohse signing, not because it worked out, but because it looked like a good gamble at the time.  I look back at the lack of a Pujols extension 1-2 years ago and fault DeWitt for that one.  I don't think I am being hypocritical, although you sometimes argue that I am.  I think we often agree on basics, but some of these issues take a long time to hash out, more time than we might have.

Max wrote:

"http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R … Audio.aspx"

Where do we begin, Fors . . . ?

1. 53% of their listeners would be happy if Pujols did not sign this week.

2. The dude can't pronounce, "nouveau riche".

3. Burwell's piece was, "class warfare"?

4. DeWitt told the announcer that "monster profits" were inaccurate.  [Well heck, I guess I was wrong.]

How much of this do I have to listen to?

Say what you want, but I promise you McKernan has a much greater base than does Burwell.  McKernan has been on the air for about 7 years running.  Burwell was on briefly and was fired for a lack of ratings.

You were the one who said Burwell was speaking for Cardinal Nation.  The fact of the matter is that he may be speaking for a portion, but not all of it.  There are a lot of people around here (myself included) who think the team would be making a monumental mistake to give Pujols 10 years unless it's at a price favorable to the team.

forsberg_us wrote:

Max wrote:

"http://www.insidestl.com/insideSTLcom/R … Audio.aspx"

Where do we begin, Fors . . . ?

1. 53% of their listeners would be happy if Pujols did not sign this week.

2. The dude can't pronounce, "nouveau riche".

3. Burwell's piece was, "class warfare"?

4. DeWitt told the announcer that "monster profits" were inaccurate.  [Well heck, I guess I was wrong.]

How much of this do I have to listen to?

Say what you want, but I promise you McKernan has a much greater base than does Burwell.  McKernan has been on the air for about 7 years running.  Burwell was on briefly and was fired for a lack of ratings.

You were the one who said Burwell was speaking for Cardinal Nation.  The fact of the matter is that he may be speaking for a portion, but not all of it.  There are a lot of people around here (myself included) who think the team would be making a monumental mistake to give Pujols 10 years unless it's at a price favorable to the team.

I wrote, "a new legion of Cardinal Nation has a leader with a voice!"  Power is lying there on the ground and Burwell has taken sides, and in doing so, he has reached down and grabbed a share.  Rome had many legions, not just one.  Cardinal Nation does too.  Burwell has spoken for people like me: DeWitt is taking an enormous gamble.

There is no hedge in his bet.  A baseball man, a guy who spent his soda pop bottle return money on baseball cards, would pay Pujols what he wants as long as it is with reason.  The A-Rod deal clearly puts $30 million per season within reason.  The Howard deal clearly sets out $25 million per season as too little to be reasonable.  A Texeira-sized deal is ridiculous.  DeWitt's only recourse is to say: "all those other teams made mistakes and I am willing put my money where my mouth is." 

We'll see.

No, can't say I did.  Or at least I don't remember it.